Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 1

974.5301/4–2452: Telegram

No. 438
The Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations¹

confidential

Washington, May 22, 1952—5:58 p.m.

443. Re Suez. Urtel 736, Apr 24.

1. We believe element which shld govern any actions at this stage re Suez blockade is course of Anglo-Egyptian negots. Accordingly, we do not believe Suez restriction problem shld be raised while Anglo-Egyptian conversations continue and there is some hope for settlement. We understand UK Del has been instructed by London this sense.

2. In view of above it is clear that of the alternatives suggested by Eban only the first can be considered at this time, namely that we leave matters as they are. We have repeatedly emphasized to Eban and other Israelis that we have Suez restriction problem much in mind and that we share Israel’s desire to have restrictions removed. We have no intention of ignoring or forgetting Sept 1, 1951 SC Res. However we believe raising matter at this time undoubtedly wld have a most prejudicial effect on Anglo-Egyptian talks.

3. Shld occasion require that you discuss second and third alternatives we suggest that fol may be helpful:

We believe second alternative i.e., testing blockade, wld be most unfortunate, since whether or not Israel took full responsibility for such action, incident wld probably occur which might not only make the problem more difficult to handle but also have serious effect on Anglo-Egyptian talks. Third alternative, i.e. obtaining public statement or private intimation from Egypt assuring free passage rights to Israel assuming it an acceptable course of action wld be matter of timing. Since Israel has no means of direct approach to Egypt, except possibly through MAC, approach wld presumably have to be made by one or more members of SC on the basis inquiring from Egypt re its intentions compliance with Sept 1 SC Res. Since compliance with SC Res’s wld be basis this approach rather than question of free passage rights for Israel, it is possible that Israel’s record of compliance with SC Res’s on Pal wld be raised by Egypt. We assume Israel has had this possibility in mind in considering desirability third alternative.

4. You may inform Israeli Del that it continues to be our firm belief that all UN Res’s shld be complied with and Egypt’s case is in no way exception to this belief. However we are of opinion that present time is not appropriate to raise this question with Egypts. We shall keep in touch with the Israelis and other interested Dels and shall be glad to review matter from time to time with them.

Acheson

1. Repeated by air pouch to London, Paris, Cairo, Ankara, and Tel Aviv.